This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Quite the opposite, as this proves the validity of the original claim: the Romney tax cut can not, in and of itself, be revenue neutral.

If you actual read the article, they blast the assumption that TPC said there would be "no economic growth". They do not refute the TPC facts; only TPC not including some hypothetical revenue growth from an improved economy. In argument, they MUST have economic growth to have a chance of being revenue neutral. In other words, the Cons are trying to once again con us with the notion that tax cuts, by themselves, generate economic growth. This remains, at very best, an unproven suggestion... Moreover, saying the the government must take the risk that the tax cut will leave them "revenue neutral" is an absurd investment proposition... why would we go from a known tax base to an unknown tax base, where the upside is where we are today? In essence, the cons want to once again cut taxes first on the HOPE it gets paid back later.

Sorry, this is a bill of goods that anyone paying attention or with half a brain can see right through. The fact of the matter is that the tax cut WILL cost the treasury known revenue (and therefore increase deficits, if not offset by other tax increases) and MAY be revenue neutral IF there is economic growth as a result.

... sorry, we have been there and done that. In the words of that snake oil salesman ".... fooled me once,........ya won't get fooled again."

Okay...As Rosen said, plausible growth is in the eye of the beholder. Now you, being anti-Romney, are certainly free to bet that there will be zero growth in order to support your opposition to him. I won't take that bet, especially given the other parts of Romney's plan that are designed to foster increased economic growth.

And there's no copy of the email. Sounds like a pundit lie. Smells like it. Is reacted by others like it.

Where's the email?

It is a conservative magazine, and Kristol and Barnes are obviously conservative. But the Weekly Standard is also a respected and relatively widely read publication. Accusing them of literally fabricating emails makes as much sense as accusing The New Republic of doing something similar. Which is to say not at all.

Quite the opposite, as this proves the validity of the original claim: the Romney tax cut can not, in and of itself, be revenue neutral.

If you actual read the article, they blast the assumption that TPC said there would be "no economic growth". They do not refute the TPC facts; only TPC not including some hypothetical revenue growth from an improved economy. In argument, they MUST have economic growth to have a chance of being revenue neutral. In other words, the Cons are trying to once again con us with the notion that tax cuts, by themselves, generate economic growth. This remains, at very best, an unproven suggestion... Moreover, saying the the government must take the risk that the tax cut will leave them "revenue neutral" is an absurd investment proposition... why would we go from a known tax base to an unknown tax base, where the upside is where we are today? In essence, the cons want to once again cut taxes first on the HOPE it gets paid back later.

Sorry, this is a bill of goods that anyone paying attention or with half a brain can see right through. The fact of the matter is that the tax cut WILL cost the treasury known revenue (and therefore increase deficits, if not offset by other tax increases) and MAY be revenue neutral IF there is economic growth as a result.

... sorry, we have been there and done that. In the words of that snake oil salesman ".... fooled me once,........ya won't get fooled again."

Except as has been repeated time and time again, Romneys plan is to eliminate tax deductions and credits equal to the estimated loss in revenue due to lowering tax rates. Which would make it revenue neutral. The problem with all of the estimates about Romneys plan is they make assumptions as to which deductions will be eliminated. Thus any study of Romneys plan is a guess. Its a valid criticism to say his plan isnt detailed enough to know what it would really do.

But then, since the President cant actually change the tax code, its kind of dumb to assume hes going to do anything. Congress will write the bill, not Romney.

Okay...As Rosen said, plausible growth is in the eye of the beholder. Now you, being anti-Romney, are certainly free to bet that there will be zero growth in order to support your opposition to him. I won't take that bet, especially given the other parts of Romney's plan that are designed to foster increased economic growth.

You are missing the point: it is NOT revenue neutral in and of itself, which is the TPC claim. The OP counterclaim was that the TPC study was wrong; it is not.

Except as has been repeated time and time again, Romneys plan is to eliminate tax deductions and credits equal to the estimated loss in revenue due to lowering tax rates. Which would make it revenue neutral. The problem with all of the estimates about Romneys plan is they make assumptions as to which deductions will be eliminated. Thus any study of Romneys plan is a guess. Its a valid criticism to say his plan isnt detailed enough to know what it would really do.

But then, since the President cant actually change the tax code, its kind of dumb to assume hes going to do anything. Congress will write the bill, not Romney.

First, there are not enough deductions that can be eliminated to make a 20% across tax cut revenue neutral, especially if cap gains is off the table, which Romney said it was. There is a $86B shortfall if you eliminate all

Second, even if you eliminated all deductions, the deduction value is disproportionately beneficial to middle, upper middle and lower upper income wage earners. Eliminating them would effect a shift in burden from the very wealthy to the middle, which is pretty much having the middle pay for tax cuts for the most wealthy, which is the original assertion.

This "passing it off to congress" is deliberately vague and designed to obfuscate the issue. Presidents generally propose workable plans to congress, which then get written by congress. Saying I want to cut taxes by 20%, you make it work congress, is not workable, if impossible. The fact is, as the TPC study and numerous others said it can not be done. The only other tangible approach would be to eliminate all deductions AND effect a tax cut of less than 20%.

I appreciate the fact that everyone loves tax cuts. We would all like to have diet of nothing but ice cream as well. Santa Mitt and his #1 elf Paul are certainly whispering sweet nothings in your ear.... they are promising you a life of utopia to lure you up to their hotel room where..... enough of this metaphor, you get the picture.

You are missing the point: it is NOT revenue neutral in and of itself, which is the TPC claim. The OP counterclaim was that the TPC study was wrong; it is not.

Dude...I don't think even Obama would make the bet that there will be zero growth and that we should, therefore, dismiss Romney's plan because of it. No, Obama's method is to misrepresent another's finding for his own purposes.

Maybe you can locate the email where the President allegedly said these things, because until it shows up, this article is just political propaganda.

Alex Carey:

... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

Dude...I don't think even Obama would make the bet that there will be zero growth and that we should, therefore, dismiss Romney's plan because of it. No, Obama's method is to misrepresent another's finding for his own purposes.

The idea that you pay for a tax cut out of future growth is the Bush II tax cut of 2001/03... it is a big reason we are in this mess. The very reason the Romney plan is being challenged is because it was represented as being funded out of tax restructuring; not some hypothetical. The inherent lie, however, is that it needs the hypothetical to work; it CANNOT be funded solely from tax restructuring.

The indictment is that the Romney taxcut is just a re-packaged Bush taxcut; a double down on failed economic policies. That is all the Dems are saying and NO ONE has been able to refute it.